Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. A. Das, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. At the outset, the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents has raised the issue of maintainability of both the present revisions on the ground that against the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (DRT for short), there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners by filing an appeal as provided in Section 18 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short). Hence, instead of entertaining the present revision, the petitioners may be directed to move the appellate forum. Thus, this Court had heard the learned Counsels for the parties on the preliminary issue raised by the respondents.

3. The brief introductory case of the parties is that the respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. IDBI Bank Ltd. and its Authorized Officer had taken steps under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short), against the petitioners for enforcing recovery of a sum of Rs.4,19,10,110.88/- (Rupees Four Crore nineteen lakh ten thousand one hundred ten and paise eighty eight only) as on 01.08.2016, as appears from the sale notice published in the newspapers.

4. Against notice dated 17.04.2014 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and possession notice dated 06.06.2016 issued under Section 13(12) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (DRT for short). The application filed by the petitioners was registered as Application (SARFAESI) No. 50/2016. Thereafter, during the pendency of the said application, on 28.08.2016, a public notice for sale of immovable properties of the respondents No.1 and 2 was published in the newspapers. The reserve price of the immovable property described in the said notice was Rs.1,70,44,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy lakh forty four thousand only). The petitioners challenged the said notice before the learned DRT by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which was numbered as Application (SAFAESI) No. 78/2016.

5. In connection with Application (SAFAESI) No. 78/2016, the petitioners had filed M.A. No. 155/2016, praying before the learned DRT to restrain the respondents No.1 and 2 herein from selling the mortgaged properties pursuant to the notice of sale dated 28.08.2016. The prayer was based on the projection that no provision was made for the safe custody of movable properties, the value of the property as submitted by the empanelled valuer does not depict the true valuation and that the empanelled valuer was not a approved valuer within the meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (“SAFAESI Rules” for short), 2002. The said misc. application was dismissed by the learned DRT by order dated 25.10.2016, which is the subject matter of challenge in CRP 439/2016, which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Thereafter, the entire matter was heard and by order dated 03.02.2017, the learned DRT dismissed (i) Application (SAFAESI) No. 50/2016, (ii) Application (SAFAESI) No. 78/2016, (iii) M.A. No. 151/16, and (iv) M.A. No. 112/16 filed by the Petitioners. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in CRP 81/2017, which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that –

(a). The provisions of Rule 2(d) of SARFAESI Rules provides for “approved valuer”, and it required that the valuer must be approved by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the secured creditor. By relying on the documents filed in this application, it is submitted that the ‘valuer’ who had valued the assets was merely an “empane